5 ms·

GTFO, there is tons of Russian propaganda on FB, including fake shit but some Russian trolls get upset when social media and moderators remove provable false t

GTFO, there is tons of Russian propaganda on FB, including fake shit but some Russian trolls get upset when social media and moderators remove provable false things.

HKH2 5y ago
Are you sure you're responding to the right comment? The OP was referring to Facebook allowing calls for violence against Russians. (Is that fake news?) Is your argument that Facebook doing that played no part in Russia's decision?
- simion314 5y ago
  He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia. I said this is not true and I am expecting a lot of ani-Russia, anti-Putin content to exist on FB, but don't pretend that this is only one sided. Anyway , weird Putin coward and did not unplug the Internet yet, they were testing this in the past so I am wondering why still keep it, young Russian have access to the truth and this is a big danger for the war-criminal
  - freedomben 5y ago
    > He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia. Where did you get that? The entirety of the post I saw was: > Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision. Can you point to the part where they get upset, or otherwise makes a value judgment at all?
  - HKH2 5y ago
    > He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia. What makes you think the OP is upset? It seems like a neutral argument to me. Did the OP edit their post?
    - simion314 5y ago
      I might have misinterpreted the comment, now is flagged, would be a good idea if OP learns to be more clear and what he means and maybe link to the event he is refering rather then assume everyone will understand his allusions. Someone linked something so I am reading that now.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        I was exceedingly clear and neutral. Your own emotion read into words that were not there. I simply stated a fact and offered no judgement on the merits of the action.
- freedomben 5y ago
  OP's argument is legit: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-and-instagram-let-users-call-for-death-to-russian-soldiers-over-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-...
  - tpmx 5y ago
    Did you even read beyond the headline? “As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we have temporarily made allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules, like violent speech such as ‘death to the Russian invaders’. We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” Meta said in a statement.
    - simion314 5y ago
      >Did you even read beyond the headline? I am guilty, I will do better next time.
- antattack 5y ago
  Responding to someones murderous actions is not violence- it's self defense.
  - HKH2 5y ago
    That is not relevant to the OP's argument. Do you think the OP is blaming Facebook?

GTFO, there is tons of Russian propaganda on FB, including fake shit but some Russian trolls get upset when social media and moderators remove provable false things.

HKH2 5y ago

Are you sure you're responding to the right comment? The OP was referring to Facebook allowing calls for violence against Russians. (Is that fake news?) Is your argument that Facebook doing that played no part in Russia's decision?

simion314 5y ago
He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia. I said this is not true and I am expecting a lot of ani-Russia, anti-Putin content to exist on FB, but don't pretend that this is only one sided. Anyway , weird Putin coward and did not unplug the Internet yet, they were testing this in the past so I am wondering why still keep it, young Russian have access to the truth and this is a big danger for the war-criminal
- freedomben 5y ago
  > He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia. Where did you get that? The entirety of the post I saw was: > Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision. Can you point to the part where they get upset, or otherwise makes a value judgment at all?
- HKH2 5y ago
  > He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia. What makes you think the OP is upset? It seems like a neutral argument to me. Did the OP edit their post?
  - simion314 5y ago
    I might have misinterpreted the comment, now is flagged, would be a good idea if OP learns to be more clear and what he means and maybe link to the event he is refering rather then assume everyone will understand his allusions. Someone linked something so I am reading that now.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      I was exceedingly clear and neutral. Your own emotion read into words that were not there. I simply stated a fact and offered no judgement on the merits of the action.
freedomben 5y ago
OP's argument is legit: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-and-instagram-let-users-call-for-death-to-russian-soldiers-over-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-...
- tpmx 5y ago
  Did you even read beyond the headline? “As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we have temporarily made allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules, like violent speech such as ‘death to the Russian invaders’. We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” Meta said in a statement.
  - simion314 5y ago
    >Did you even read beyond the headline? I am guilty, I will do better next time.
antattack 5y ago
Responding to someones murderous actions is not violence- it's self defense.
- HKH2 5y ago
  That is not relevant to the OP's argument. Do you think the OP is blaming Facebook?